With the increasing number of refugees entering into the education system, there is a

need for greater concentration on teaching pedagogies that equip schools with being

able to serve a diverse student population. The importance of reviewing research is in

order to ensure the applicability and validity of research, as the education landscape is

dynamic meaning appraisal is needed to ensure its effectiveness. This research

critique will focus upon two research articles concerning the Refugee Action Support

(RAS) program, which is an after-school program that assists refugee students

according to individual needs. The primary article of critique in this paper is Naidoo

(2012), which is a research report that explicates the RAS program, as well as its

benefit to the education landscape for pre-service teachers, refugees and schools.

Ferfolja & Vickers (2010) will be utilized as a supplementary research article to

expand upon Naidoo (2012) and further investigate and critique the claims of the

research. Through this paper Naidoo (2012) will be referred to as Study A, and

Ferfolja & Vickers (2010) will be referred to as Study B. The choice of Study B to

comparison with Study A, is that both concern the RAS program, however both are

regarding different stages of the programs development. The synthesis of these

articles will incorporate further research into the RAS program to envelope a greater

understanding of the initiative. Following this critique will be discussion into

implications that this research may have for teaching practice.

The purpose of both Study A and Study B is clearly defined in that both aim to

explicate the efficacy of the RAS program in relation to pre-service teachers, and to

refugee students. The purpose of both articles lies in explaining the impetus of the

RAS program, and how there is a need for such a program due to schools not being

adequately equipped to serve refugee background students adequately. (Ferfolja &

Vickers, 2010., Naidoo, 2010). Both studies similarly note that the models of

schooling orientated around a single mould for learning further separates and

disadvantages refugee students, and that the findings of the RAs program position it

to be of great benefit to these students through adequately supporting them (Naid00,

2012). A focal point of both Study A and Study B is how the RAS program can be of

benefit to pre-service teachers, as there is a need to be able to differentiate to a diverse

student population. It is the assertion of both research articles that the RAS program

extends opportunities for pre-service teachers to be able to learn this (Naidoo, 2012.,

Ferfolja & Vickers, 2010). The point of educating pre-service teachers to be able to

serve diverse students is reiterated by Howard & Obidah (2005).

The results of Study A were that students “were engaged, motivated to learn;

successfully completed and submitted assignments and were given new and diverse

learning opportunities” (Naidoo, 2012). Coupled with this, Study A found that pre-

service teachers were afforded opportunity to extend understandings, and practice

skills in teaching diverse learners (Naidoo, 2012). The findings of Study B are

agreeable with those of Study A, with the addition that the program was also effective

in including students to the learning environment (Ferfolja & Vickers, 2010). The

results of both studies are substantiated by the ALNF who note the success of the

program, including noting the commendations and awards that the program has

received (ALNF, 2008). These results are further corroborated through preliminary

data of the first trial of the RAS program, which states 87% of students experienced

improvement (Curriculum and Leadership, 2008).

The literature review in Study A is extensive, and outlines the current research in the

field of study and how there are gaps in the field as there is no focus on “pedagogical

strategies to inform teaching and learning” (Naidoo, 2012, p.268). It is also evident

through reading the literature review in Study A that the findings have been utilised to

direct the RAS program. This is evident through the literature review highlighting

research that points to the need to proffer additional time, and targeted learning to

refugees, as well as research in the literature review that highlights the importance of

teachers being trained in not only literacy, but also second language learning (Naidoo,

2012). This is evident in the structure of the RAS program as the after-school program

is targeted assistance that provides extra time for students to work on classwork, and

through the fact that prior to pre-service teachers entering into the program they are

required to complete an ESL course (Naidoo, 2012). Study B however has no clearly

defined literature review component, but instead justifies the existence of the RAS

program through citing previous research concerning the program (Ferfolja &

Vickers, 2010). It is worth noting that this previous research does incorporate

literature reviews. The omission of a dedicated literature review in Study B does

make the research findings questionable. The reason for this as Oliver (2012) states is

that the literature review allows for the reader to unveil a clear progression in the

research. Schostak & Schostak (2015) further state the importance of the literature

review, as it uncovers the discourse and debate in the area in question, and allows for

an understanding as to why the research is needed. MacMillan (2012) notes that

without the review of literature, researchers are likely to not be employing the most

effective methods into current research. It is clearly apparent that Study A contains

adequate review of literature in accordance to the points mentioned, as it highlights

the current debates, problems with current research, and also uncovers why there is a
need for the RAS program. The school-community-university initiatives’ benefits that

the literature review of Study A raises is also confirmed by Hardy (2013) who notes

the benefit of the additional resources that such partnerships provide. In evaluating

research, an important consideration point is the literature review, and in the case of

Study A it has depth and achieves its purpose, however, Study B does not contain a

literature review (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2015).

Both Study A and B use qualitative data obtained throughs semi-structured interviews

with participants in the study. Study A obtained these interviews from all participants

in the program, including students, RAS tutors, the principal, as well as teachers.

These interviews were group and individual, with the researchers etic perspective

being that a broad representation of the participants was provided (Naidoo, 2012).

Study B however, employed interview of 30-60 minute length with the RAS

coordinators only at the beginning and end of the program. Coupled with this, Study

B had 5 teachers also complete questionnaires, which provided quantitative data on

the efficacy of the RAS program. The research does however note that the sample size

of this quantitative data was very small, so no inferences were made from it (Ferfolja

& Vickers, 2010). Upon looking at the data collection, Study A had a proportional

sample in which a multitude of different people were included in the interviews,

whilst Study B was confined to interviewing the coordinators alone. Study A bares no

mention as to how this data was utilized to formulate groupings and recurrent themes.

Gall Et al., (2015) note the importance of following a structure in coding and

thematically grouping in order to avoid bias. Study B makes clearly apparent that the

data was coded thematically, which led to a general picture as to how the program
was supporting students (Ferfolja & Vickers, 2010) Although Study A likely followed

a similar methodology, only Study B explicitly states the data analysis procedures.

The research methodologies employed in Study A involved consideration of previous

iterations of the program, and adjustments made based upon feedback (Naidoo, 2012).

The conducting of research in Study A involved a chief investigator who conducted

the interviews, as well as a school-based coordinator that oversaw the program. The

focus of the research was the “ structure, effect, and value of the program, as well as

how it supported teaching and learning in schools” (Naidoo, 2012, p.270). The

research methodologies employed in Study B involved monitoring student attendance,

as well as interviews with the coordinators directly involved in the program. The main

technique of Study A and B of data collection was through qualitative measures,

although quantitative measures were employed in Study B, albeit not to great extent

(Ferfolja & Vickers, 2010). The limitations of Study A are not apparent through the

research methodologies, as interviews are a common means of data collection in

qualitative research (Gall Et al., 2015). Limitations of Study B could be evident

through the fact that the only interviewed participants are the coordinators, which

does not allow for the range or scope of perspectives that is provided in Study A.

The findings of both Study A and B are similar in the fact that both have findings that

show the RAS program to be of considerable benefit to refugee students. Study A

provides the emic perspective of participants in the results, including; the refugee

students, the RAS tutors, school perceptions, as well as the etic perspective of the

researchers in the conclusion (Naidoo, 2012). Study B however only provides the

emic perspective of the coordinators, attributable to the fact that the research did not
interview any other participants. Both Study A and B note the program aided in

greater inclusivity of students with refugee background, and that the program led to a

progression in school achievement (Naidoo, 2012., Ferfolja & Vickers, 2010). The

results of Study A focus upon the social capital and self-confidence the program

provided, as well as the fact that RAS tutors believed the program provided real world

teaching experience (Naidoo, 2012). The results of study B focus instead on the

literacy proficiency of students, noting the increased independence in class, and

increased literacy competency the participants in RAS acquired (Ferfolja & Vickers,

2010).